- (1.)THIS Criminal Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioners/original applicants, being aggrieved by the order dated 21st October, 1991 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, allowing the Revision Application of the Petitioner, and directing Respondent No.1, namely, husband of Petitioner No.1 to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.60/- per month to each of the Petitioners from the date of the application.
(2.)FEW facts which are required to be stated are as follows: The Petitioner No.1 Indubai Gend is the legally wedded wife of Respondent No.1 Chandrakant Gend, while Petitioner No.2 is the minor daughter of Chandrakant Gend and Indubai.
It is the contention of the Petitioner No.1 that initially, for a period of one year after marriage, she was treated properly by her husband. However, subsequently, Respondent No.1 and his parents started demanding dowry and other articles from the Petitioner No.1. Since the financial position of the parents of Petitioner No.1 was weak, those demands could not be satisfied. As a result, Respondent No.1 started harassing and ill-treating Petitioner No.1. The Petitioner No.1 was not given sufficient food. At that time, Respondent No.1 was serving in some Bank. Sometime in the year 1982, Petitioner No.1's brother Tukaram got married, and at that time, there was some quarrel with respect to the present that was given to Respondent No.1 by the parents of Petitioner No.1. According to Respondent No.1 the clothes given to him by the parents of Petitioner No.1 were of inferior quality, and therefore, he took up quarrel with them. He started beating his wife, and therefore, Petitioner No.1 was constrained to leave her matrimonial house. She then started residing with her parents. Thereafter, she heard that Respondent No.1 was contemplating second marriage and it was in fact fixed on 28th May, 1986. Therefore, she filed a complaint with Bijapur Nakaj Police Station at Sholapur. Respondent No.1 appeared at the Police Station, and assured Petitioner No.1 that he was not going to perform second marriage. It seems, however, that Respondent No.1 has not kept the promise, and has married some other woman.

It is the contention of Petitioner No.1 that she gave birth to Petitioner No.2 Uma. The said Uma was hardly seven months old, when application for maintenance was made by her. It is her case that Respondent No.1 was neglecting the Petitioners, though Petitioner No.1 was not able to maintain herself and her daughter. Hence she filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.98/86 dated 31.10.1988 against the Respondent for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate of Sangli. It appears that there is not much dispute about the legal status of Petitioner No.1 as legally wedded wife, so also, there is no dispute about the paternity of petitioner No.2. The contention of Respondent appears to be that he is not himself able to maintain the Petitioners. It is admitted by Respondent No.1 that Criminal Case filed by Petitioner No.1 under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code for the offence of bigamy, is pending against him.

(3.)THE learned Magistrate by his order dated 31st October, 1988, after recording the evidence, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner No.1 had failed to establish that she was unable to maintain herself and her daughter. Observing this, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application of the petitioners.
Being aggrieved by this order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli, the Petitioners filed Criminal Revision No.5/89 in the Court of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, who passed Judgment and Order dated 21st October, 1991, allowing the revision, and directing Respondent No.1 to pay maintenance at the relate of Rs.60/- per month to each of the Petitioners from the date of the application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.10.1991, the Petitioners have now approached this Court by way of present Writ Petition.